Forum Help

If you want to ask about changing your username, have login problems, have password problems or a technical issue please email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com

Posting help:

If you want to ask why a word can't be typed, your signature's been changed, or a post has been deleted see the Forum Rules. If you don't find the answer you can ask forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com though due to volumes we can't guarantee replies.

Login to MSE Forum

Join the MSE Forum

Skimlinks adds tracking to some, primarily retailers' links, to show they come from this forum. For some retailers, instead of using Skimlinks to turn the link into a tracked link, we use affiliated links set up through other third parties. Then if it generates revenue from that, this site is paid. The links don't change the content, or what you see or track individual data ? but they do help fund this free forum. So we hope you choose to switch it on. See the full Skimlinks factsheet for more.

Just been reading about a case where it seems pretty clear that a man did something really terrible to his young child which resulted in her death. Wont mention details as its probably not allowed.
Anyway, said person apparently refused to answer questions put to him in court. Why do we allow this?! If you are innocent surely you would answer in as much detail possible to convince everyone of your innocence?
Then....even if found guilty of terrible crimes, offenders are jailed for such short amounts of time. The re offending rate is high too.
As a supposedly leading nation, why is life so cheap here in the UK? If someone is guilty of a disgusting crime, why burden the tax payer housing and feeding them?
I'm truly happy we have fair trials etc but I do think the overall system is way too soft. Its an insult to victims and the tax payer.

It does. Juries draw their own conclusion as to why people choose not to answer.

Having said that, as a general rule there are other reasons why people choose/are advised not to answer questions. They may be innocent but have an unfortunate manner/way of presenting themselves which leads people to make alternative judgements about them - the parent who is traumatised but comes across as cold or uncaring, for example.
It's not as simple as saying if you're innocent then you have nothing to hide - too many cases have demonstrated otherwise.

Last edited by elsien; 04-12-2017 at 8:20 PM.

All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well.

Then....even if found guilty of terrible crimes, offenders are jailed for such short amounts of time. The re offending rate is high too.
As a supposedly leading nation, why is life so cheap here in the UK? If someone is guilty of a disgusting crime, why burden the tax payer housing and feeding them?

How is it 'pretty clear' when you have presumably only read reports in the paper and have not been privy to any of the details?

“

Anyway, said person apparently refused to answer questions put to him in court. Why do we allow this?! If you are innocent surely you would answer in as much detail possible to convince everyone of your innocence?

This goes back to the fundamental maxim that one is innocent until PROVEN guilty. This means that the state has to PROVE your guilt. You do not have to prove your innocence. If the state cannot PROVE to a jury beyond all reasonable doubt that you have committed a crime then you should not be convicted of it.

Therefore, a defendant is under no obligation to say anything or do anything positive in their defence. Personally I believe it is right that that should be the case.

“

Then....even if found guilty of terrible crimes, offenders are jailed for such short amounts of time. The re offending rate is high too.

Another belief gleaned from sensational news stories? There are sentencing guidelines which set out the factors that are taken into account when sentencing and help set out appropriate sentences. In most cases which the papers make a big deal of as being lenient, there are often heavy factors in mitigation which are conveniently not reported in the papers because they don't fit the narrative/propaganda.

“

As a supposedly leading nation, why is life so cheap here in the UK? If someone is guilty of a disgusting crime, why burden the tax payer housing and feeding them?
I'm truly happy we have fair trials etc but I do think the overall system is way too soft. Its an insult to victims and the tax payer.

Anyway, said person apparently refused to answer questions put to him in court. Why do we allow this?! If you are innocent surely you would answer in as much detail possible to convince everyone of your innocence?

Yes in the right circumstances. If its really clear someone has done a terrible crime what's the use in housing them in prison for years or thier entire life? Look at Ian Brady. Must have cost hundreds of thousands to keep him locked up. If someone goes round abusing or murdering kids I think its inexcusable.

It's not a trial. I do think when you start a thread about the court system and justice that it's important to know what aspect of it you are talking about.

I also think it's a terrible case and mistakes were certainly made in the early stages, but we have a very good criminal justice system in this country. Not without it's faults, but overall it is fair and just and cautious (as it should be). I would be strongly against the death penalty in this country for many reasons. Some of those reasons:

Mistakes being made and the innocent being executed.
The state being used as a killing machine.
Individuals being asked to participate in killing people.
Asking juries to decide in cases with a possible death penalty.

The US has the death penalty in many states and, from what I've seen, it's not something to aspire to. Prisoners sit on death row for decades, so you get the worst of all possible worlds as they still need feeding and a roof over their heads. The cost of constant appeals over those years must be extortionate too. Surely it's inhumane to condemn a man or woman to death and then let them sit in prison for year after year? They themselves may be inhuman, but the state should be better than that and so should we.

How this site works

We think it's important you understand the strengths and limitations of the site. We're a journalistic website and aim to provide the best MoneySaving guides, tips, tools and techniques, but can't guarantee to be perfect, so do note you use the information at your own risk and we can't accept liability if things go wrong.

This info does not constitute financial advice, always do your own research on top to ensure it's right for your specific circumstances and remember we focus on rates not service.

Do note, while we always aim to give you accurate product info at the point of publication, unfortunately price and terms of products and deals can always be changed by the provider afterwards, so double check first.

We don't as a general policy investigate the solvency of companies mentioned (how likely they are to go bust), but there is a risk any company can struggle and it's rarely made public until it's too late (see the Section 75 guide for protection tips).

We often link to other websites, but we can't be responsible for their content.

Always remember anyone can post on the MSE forums, so it can be very different from our opinion.

MoneySavingExpert.com is part of the MoneySupermarket Group, but is entirely editorially independent. Its stance of putting consumers first is protected and enshrined in the legally-binding MSE Editorial Code.